Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution… “Any Takers?”
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 106 of 196 (609913)
03-24-2011 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eye-Squared-R
06-06-2010 3:13 PM


Re: Professional Publishable Debate
Hi, Eye-Squared-R
Would you please explain to Dr Adequate what he must do to meet your SIGNED FIRM COMMITMENT in order for the debate to take place.
I would rather see it here on EvC but I can wait for the book.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 06-06-2010 3:13 PM Eye-Squared-R has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by subbie, posted 03-24-2011 2:03 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 131 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 11-01-2011 2:09 AM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 107 of 196 (609918)
03-24-2011 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by ICANT
03-24-2011 1:04 PM


Re: Professional Publishable Debate
So far you are the only person in this thread to use the word "signed." Do you suffer from an overactive imagination? Or are you simply shilling for Eye-Squared-R and trying to give him another out?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2011 1:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2011 4:08 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 108 of 196 (609929)
03-24-2011 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by subbie
03-24-2011 2:03 PM


Re: Professional Publishable Debate
Hi subbie,
subbie writes:
So far you are the only person in this thread to use the word "signed."
You may be correct but I take the following to be a signed FIRM COMMITMENT.
The following is from Message 71 which ESR has refered to several times, in following posts.
Eye-Squared-R writes:
Your EVC peers may be sensitive to my quoting them by their EVC Forum moniker — so I’ll use substitute monikers for the purpose of these exercises. Since your peers have expressed exceptionally high confidence in their skills and abilities regarding physics, they shall be referred to as: Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 and #2.
Exercise #1 following your suggested format:
Statement by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 4:
I am inclined to think that your proposed debate is a non-starter, because it is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of a theory such as neo-Darwinism.
_____
Presumed Error of Fact #1 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 10:
While theories are never proven with a 100% confidence level, some have been demonstrated to consistently be true and scientifically validated at such a high confidence level — they’re essentially codified into law. An example is Ohm’s Law (V=IR) continuously applied without a known failure in trillions of applications.
_____
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 16:
The interesting thing about your example, is that it is wrong
Taken as saying that current is proportional to voltage, Ohm's law is false and well known to be false
_____
Defense of presumed Error of Fact #1 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 23:
You’ll be wasting your time and you will further discredit your level of knowledge and understanding if you persist with the claim Ohm’s law is false and well known to be false
Until it is ever nullified (a condition for a theory), the equation V=IR is an observed and predictable relationship between three phenomena so consistent as to be considered Law.
_____
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 58:
In Message 23 you wrote " Ohm’s law applies to both constant and variable current where ever the medium includes any resistance " and that is quite wrong. The relation between current and voltage is actually expressed by a more complex equation involving an integral (for the effect of capacitance) and a derivative (for the effect of inductance) in addition to the linear term due to resistance. Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used. (Bold emphasis mine)
_____
Now, Dr Adequate, the topic is the reliability of Ohm’s Law in the context of scientific theory. What will you submit regarding your position on the validity of Ohm’s Law (when alternating current is being applied) for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Are you submitting (and claiming for publication) the assertion from your EVC Forum peer (Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1) that Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used?
Or will you determine that Ohm’s Law is evidenced to be unconditionally true in the real world of physics? I suggest you recruit and collaborate with at least one FIRM commitment by someone you consider a reliable authority in fundamental physics - and then post your response for us with an explanation and example (if appropriate) as you would in a professional publishable debate.
Exercise #2
Presumed Error of Fact #2 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 23:
I2R can also be viewed as Heat.
_____
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 28:
what you wrote can be viewed as bullshit
No offense Eye-Squared-R, but I know far more about the physics of electricity than you are even capable of knowing...
If you had half a clue on what you are talking about, you would not have said anything so foolish as: I2R can also be viewed as Heat.
_____
Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 in Message 30:
You would do well to remember that EvC is home to far more than its fair share of professionals, and please remember the important difference between experts and "experts".
And from Message 40:
Power is not heat, is not like heat, cannot be thought of as heat.
To confuse the two is to fail high-school physics.
_____
Defense of presumed Error of Fact #2 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 48:
(After presenting equations)if you don’t mind (Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2), please answer (the) question below to help us gain insight into your level of knowledge and understanding:
  • What would be one example where Real Power (in kilo-Watts) is not totally and continuously manifest in heat at any time?
_____
OK Dr. Adequate, here are the examples proposed by your peers where Real Power (I2R in kilo-Watts) is supposedly not totally and continuously manifest in heat at any time:
  1. Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 64:
    If you drove an electric car uphill, part of the energy from that "I2R" would finish up as the potential energy of the car being at a higher altitude.
  2. Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 in Message 56:
    What do you think radio and microwave transmitters transmit? Heat?
_____
Now Dr. Adequate, the topic for your submission is whether Real power (I2R) is manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as Heat.
These gentlemen have clearly proclaimed their intellectual superiority and confidence in these matters of science.
And they’ve judged one who disagrees to be stupid, foolish, etc.
Now that should have a familiar ring Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)!
But they’re so condescendingly confident!
What’s your position?
Are you prepared to submit and defend these examples (asserting exception) offered from your peers for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Incidentally, I’ve done some homework for you in Message 48 (derivations), Message 60, and other messages in this thread. You must determine whether I2R (power) is always manifest completely as Heat or whether it is partially manifest as potential energy or electromagnetic energy as your EvC Forum peers claim above.
Oh, and please note I have not "equated" power to heat in units - that poor strawman has been beaten to death. My position is that whenever you are viewing "Real" Power (I2R), you are necessarily viewing all that power manifest exclusively and totally as heat.
Again, you’ll likely need a trusted expert in physics to aid and assist you in affirming or negating the responses from your peers for your hypothetical professional written submission. This stuff isn’t subjective or beholden to one’s personal philosophy. It’s either right or wrong. I’m sure you’ll desire the utmost accuracy since your name will be associated with your analysis and response.
In this particular case, I’ve devised a new acronym to describe the behavior and language of Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 while flaming out in Message 56 — I shall refer to this type response by either an evolutionist or a creationist as a GNAW: (Gets Nasty At Will) Surely you’d agree gnawing doesn’t lend credibility in a professional setting.
If we bantered these assertions concerning Ohm’s Law and the nature of Real Power back and forth many times, they could eventually qualify as PRATTs (evolutionist term for Points Refuted A Thousand Times). I perceive you expect a walk in the park with some commonly inferred PRATTs. That may be the case, or it may not. Potential difficulties for one or both sides of this issue may be the reason a publishable debate hasn’t been done before (that I could find) in a professional written format that could be used in educational settings. Time will tell if we can pull this off.
In any case, I’ve penned a new acronym to describe these types of banter when a highly confident Adherent to Sophisticated Science apparently doesn’t understand everything he/she knows - PR-NUT: (Points Refuted — Not Understood Totally)! And for the Flame-Out types, we could add the acronym JOB: (Just Obnoxious Behavior).
Now doctor, your submission should delineate whether these exercises in physical science constitute potential PRATTs, PR-NUTs, PR-NUTGNAWs or PR-NUTJOBs.
Again, these assignments are for your benefit. They should assist you in identifying and listing FIRM commitments from your best possible resources at EVC Forum to chip in regarding your professional response in various scientific disciplines. They should also assist you in determining a rigorous methodology to respond to any unexpected challenges in a publishable debate. To attract an interested publisher and potential commercial interest for the proposed professional debate, you should be as prepared and as successful as possible in every branch of science. If you choose to decline these assignments for whatever reason, then your commitment for a publishable debate will reasonably be considered as questionable and tentative.
We’re still in Step 1. Please note carefully, I’ll give it a few more weeks for this process to play out and see how you respond.
I’m not prone to engage frequent banter consisting of misdirected ridicule.
Those folks generally discredit themselves. But when appropriate, I’ll address them.
Silence doesn’t have to be deafening — for me, it is opportunity for deeper thought and analytical reflection.
In the meantime, I’ll continue preparing for Step 2 by investigating the best qualified creationist for your debating pleasure.
I’m glad you’re here and appreciate the resources at EVC Forum.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R
Simply replying to this post and answering as request putting his name at the bottom like ESR did would constitute a signed FIRM COMMITMENT.
I think this is the most important section ESR wants from Dr Adequate.
quote:
Now Dr. Adequate, the topic for your submission is whether Real power (I2R) is manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as Heat.
These gentlemen have clearly proclaimed their intellectual superiority and confidence in these matters of science.
And they’ve judged one who disagrees to be stupid, foolish, etc.
Now that should have a familiar ring Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)!
But they’re so condescendingly confident!
What’s your position?
Are you prepared to submit and defend these examples (asserting exception) offered from your peers for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Incidentally, I’ve done some homework for you in Message 48 (derivations), Message 60, and other messages in this thread. You must determine whether I2R (power) is always manifest completely as Heat or whether it is partially manifest as potential energy or electromagnetic energy as your EvC Forum peers claim above.
Oh, and please note I have not "equated" power to heat in units - that poor strawman has been beaten to death. My position is that whenever you are viewing "Real" Power (I2R), you are necessarily viewing all that power manifest exclusively and totally as heat.
Again, you’ll likely need a trusted expert in physics to aid and assist you in affirming or negating the responses from your peers for your hypothetical professional written submission. This stuff isn’t subjective or beholden to one’s personal philosophy. It’s either right or wrong. I’m sure you’ll desire the utmost accuracy since your name will be associated with your analysis and response.
But as you noticed I asked ESR to reply stating exactly what he is asking for, and I think this is it.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by subbie, posted 03-24-2011 2:03 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by DrJones*, posted 03-24-2011 4:32 PM ICANT has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 109 of 196 (609935)
03-24-2011 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by ICANT
03-24-2011 4:08 PM


Re: Professional Publishable Debate
Simply replying to this post and answering as request putting his name at the bottom like ESR did would constitute a signed FIRM COMMITMENT.
Why would he need to put his name at the bottom of the post when it's directly to the left of it?

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2011 4:08 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2011 8:11 PM DrJones* has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 110 of 196 (609946)
03-24-2011 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by DrJones*
03-24-2011 4:32 PM


Re: Professional Publishable Debate
Hi Dr,
In my post to subbie I put what i think he wants you to do as he keeps repeating it.
Eye-Squared-R writes:
Are you prepared to submit and defend these examples (asserting exception) offered from your peers for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Incidentally, I’ve done some homework for you in Message 48 (derivations), Message 60, and other messages in this thread. You must determine whether I2R (power) is always manifest completely as Heat or whether it is partially manifest as potential energy or electromagnetic energy as your EvC Forum peers claim above.
Oh, and please note I have not "equated" power to heat in units - that poor strawman has been beaten to death. My position is that whenever you are viewing "Real" Power (I2R), you are necessarily viewing all that power manifest exclusively and totally as heat.
Again, you’ll likely need a trusted expert in physics to aid and assist you in affirming or negating the responses from your peers for your hypothetical professional written submission. This stuff isn’t subjective or beholden to one’s personal philosophy. It’s either right or wrong. I’m sure you’ll desire the utmost accuracy since your name will be associated with your analysis and response.
I really think this is what he is wanting you to commit to doing,
Are you commited to doing what he asks. If so answer the question.
Maybe ESR will come on and clear up the muddy water.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by DrJones*, posted 03-24-2011 4:32 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by DrJones*, posted 03-24-2011 8:29 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2011 10:20 PM ICANT has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 111 of 196 (609947)
03-24-2011 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by ICANT
03-24-2011 8:11 PM


Re: Professional Publishable Debate
and where in there is asking for a "signed' commitment?

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2011 8:11 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 112 of 196 (609951)
03-24-2011 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by ICANT
03-24-2011 8:11 PM


Re: Professional Publishable Debate
ICANT writes:
I really think this is what he is wanting you to commit to doing,
And I thought it was this:
Eye-Squared-R, in the OP, writes:
So this thread topic is narrowly defined. The question is:
Are you willing to engage in a professionally moderated publishable debate on behalf of evolution?
The answer is YES.
I am sick of his ducking and weaving and evasions and excuses. He has a YES. If he won't take YES for an answer, that's his problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2011 8:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2011 10:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 113 of 196 (609953)
03-24-2011 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Dr Adequate
03-24-2011 10:20 PM


Re: Professional Publishable Debate
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes:
The answer is YES.
You are agreeing to debate as normal debating is done here on EvC. Which is nothing more than a bunch of preaching. That is not publishable.
I have been involved in two debates that was published. I did some of the research as the President of my college was a debator.
I have outlined how a debate is set up.
He did ask you specifically if you were willing to give a firm commitment to supporting the things I presented to you.
You can do as you choose, but I would advise you to walk away.
Or just sit there saying yes until he gets tired of waiting.
But I have made all the effort I intend to. I would love to see the debate but this is a stalemate and unless progress is made there will be no debate.
As RAZD says "enjoy".
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2011 10:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2011 11:55 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 114 of 196 (609955)
03-24-2011 10:51 PM


This whole thread has been silly
This whole thread has been silly.
If you want a professional quality debate, just contact Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education.
Or perhaps Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor from Brown University. He did pretty well at Dover.
Why are you trolling internet chat/debate rooms instead of seeking out organizations and individuals who have been dealing with this issue for years?
Can't handle the big time?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2011 11:59 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 117 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 4:18 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 132 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 11-01-2011 2:11 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 115 of 196 (609963)
03-24-2011 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by ICANT
03-24-2011 10:41 PM


Re: Professional Publishable Debate
You are agreeing to debate as normal debating is done here on EvC.
I must have missed where I said that. Perhaps you could quote me doing so, or perhaps you could continue to chase the magic butterflies in the fairyland in your head.
He did ask you specifically if you were willing to give a firm commitment to supporting the things I presented to you.
Which things?
I ask because your excuses for him not advancing the debate appear to be rather different from his.
Or just sit there saying yes until he gets tired of waiting.
For what? For me to say something other than yes?
I am ready to debate when he produces some creationists. I shall not get tired of waiting, because this is not a fatiguing process.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2011 10:41 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 116 of 196 (609964)
03-24-2011 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Coyote
03-24-2011 10:51 PM


Re: This whole thread has been silly
This whole thread has been silly.
Why are you trolling internet chat/debate rooms ...
Because he's a troll?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Coyote, posted 03-24-2011 10:51 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 117 of 196 (625157)
07-21-2011 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Coyote
03-24-2011 10:51 PM


Re: This whole thread has been silly
Coyote says
This whole thread has been silly.
If you want a professional quality debate, just contact Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education.
Or perhaps Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor from Brown University. He did pretty well at Dover.
Why are you trolling internet chat/debate rooms instead of seeking out organizations and individuals who have been dealing with this issue for years?
Can't handle the big time?
I agree that the criteria appear to be a reflection of an overdeveloped sense of self worth.
Indeed TOE has been around for over 150 years and worked on by very well credentialed researchers and is more of a mess today than it ever was.
The simple reference to neo-Darwinism as opposed to Darwinism is one small demonstration of the theory of evolution being a theory in evolution itself with little, if any, predictive ability past hindsight.
In the end it will be a case of facing off one theory against another and discrediting one theory with yet another, and on it will go. What you are left with is accepting the theories you want to accept, ignoring the rest, but mostly requiring a whole lot of faith in the reasonings of mankind, that change like the wind.
Todays evidence for TOE is tomorrows folley. eg LUCA, knuclewalking ancestry, bipedalism tied to brain size, Mendellian inheritance confounded by Lamarkian style epigentic inheritance, HGT in prokaryotes as a confounding factor, and so the list goes on and on.
Still it may be a fun topic to watch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Coyote, posted 03-24-2011 10:51 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Coyote, posted 07-21-2011 4:43 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 119 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 4:53 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 120 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 11:28 PM Mazzy has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 118 of 196 (625165)
07-21-2011 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Mazzy
07-21-2011 4:18 PM


Re: This whole thread has been silly
Don't bother replying to any of my posts.
I'm done with your trolling.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 4:18 PM Mazzy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 119 of 196 (625170)
07-21-2011 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Mazzy
07-21-2011 4:18 PM


Re: This whole thread has been silly
Perhaps you could find some thread where your lies and nonsense are on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 4:18 PM Mazzy has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 120 of 196 (625250)
07-21-2011 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Mazzy
07-21-2011 4:18 PM


Re: This whole thread has been silly
quote:
The simple reference to neo-Darwinism as opposed to Darwinism is one small demonstration of the theory of evolution being a theory in evolution itself with little, if any, predictive ability past hindsight.
I have tracked every sub-set factor of Darwinism to Genesis' first chapter, including assumptions of cross-speiciation. The categorising of speicies [kinds/Genesis] is wholly subject to the seed chip transmission of the host, a directive program within what has been found as dna and genes, etc, and able to produce the same replication with an extra random X factor of individuality, and continue the process of repro.
Darwin added nothing new other than observing how a car works and shouting Eureka! No car maker! Since then, ToE has embellished a host of novel fantastical improvisations as props, but when closely examined are not based on any sciences. Evolution was introduced in Genesis, in its correct protocol as an after the fact process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 4:18 PM Mazzy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024